PART FOUR

A Human Rights Act?

Although members of the community proposed to the Committee a range of options
for improving the promotion and protection of human rights, many focused on the
desirability of a Human Rights Act and the form it should take. This part of the
report discusses the views put forward and describes the historical and comparative
context of the debate.
Chapter 10 provides an overview of previous attempts to introduce a bill of rights (or
specific human rights protections) in either constitutional or statutory form in
Australia, Chapter 11 outlines the statutory models of human rights protection that
have been introduced overseas and in some Australian jurisdictions, Chapters 12
and 13 examine the arguments for and against a Human Rights Act, and
Chapter 14 discusses some of the technical aspects of drafting such an Act.




A Human Rights Act?
| 229
10 Bill of rights debates: a historical
overview
The questions of whether and how human rights should be protected in Australia
have been the subject of debate since before Federation. The drafters of the
Australian Constitution considered whether they should include a list of rights and
ultimately settled on including a small number of limited rights. Since then, at the
federal level there have been a number of proposals either to alter the Constitution
or to pass new legislation in order to formally protect human rights. This chapter
examines these proposals and outlines the findings and outcomes of recent
inquiries into the desirability of human rights Acts at the state and territory level.
1890sThe Australian Constitution is drafted. It includes a limited range of rights.
1944A referendum on freedom of speech and freedom of religion fails.
1973Federal Attorney-General Lionel Murphy introduces a human rights Bill into
parliament. It is never passed.
1981The Commonwealth Human Rights Commission Act 1981 is passed.
1984Senator Gareth Evans drafts a human rights Bill, but it is never introduced into
parliament.
1985Senator Lionel Bowens human rights Bill passes the House of Representatives but
stalls in the Senate.
1988A referendum on extending constitutional rights to the states fails.

10.1 The drafting of the Australian Constitution
The Australian Constitution was drafted at a series of conventions held in the
1890s. One of the questions debated by the delegates was whether rights should
be provided for in the Constitution, as they had been in the US Constitution.
Tasmanian Attorney-General Andrew Inglis Clark proposed that the Constitution
include the right to trial by jury for all crimes, the right to the privileges and
immunities of state citizenship, the right to equal protection under the law, the right



230 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

to freedom of religion, and a prohibition on the establishing of any religion by the
Commonwealth.
1

As outlined in Chapter 5, some of these protections were ultimately included in the
Constitution, albeit in a limited form.
2
A more comprehensive list of rights was not
included: it was generally felt that parliamentary democracy was a sufficient
guarantee of citizens rights. It has also been suggested the delegates feared that
such protections might inhibit the states abilities to enact racially discriminatory
legislation.
3

10.2 Constitutional attempts to protect rights
The 1944 referendum
In 1944 the Curtin Government proposed that the Constitution be amended to
transfer a range of state powers to the federal government to assist in postwar
reconstruction. The powers covered 14 different areas, among them health,
Indigenous peoples, employment, companies, the production and distribution of
goods, and the control of overseas exchange and investment. The federal Attorney-
General, Dr HV Evatt, proposed that the package of reforms include protections for
certain rights, apparently to allay concerns that the government was trying to
implement a socialist agenda.
4

The proposed provisions would have prevented both state and federal governments
from curtailing freedom of speech and expression and would have extended to the
states the freedom of religion contained in s. 116 of the Constitution. Some of the
14 areas in which power was to be transferred proved very controversial
5
, and the
referendum required voters to vote on the entire package of reforms. The proposals
were ultimately defeated.
6

The 1988 referendum
In 1985 the Hawke Government established a Constitutional Commission to
investigate the need for constitutional change and, in particular, whether new rights
and freedoms should be inserted in the Constitution. Because of an apparent

1
A Byrnes, H Charlesworth and G McKinnon, Bills of Rights in Australia: history, politics and law (2009) 24.
2
See the discussion of constitutional protections in Chapter 5.
3
JA La Nauze, The Making of the Australian Constitution (1972) 2312; G Williams, Human Rights under
the Australian Constitution (1999) 412.
4
H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of
Rights (1994) 25.
5
S Bennett, The Politics of Constitutional Amendment, Parliamentary Research Service, Commonwealth
Parliament, Research Paper No. 11 (2003) 17.
6
H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of
Rights (1994) 25.



A Human Rights Act?
| 231
eagerness to hold the referendum in 1988the bicentenary of European settlement
in Australiathe government asked the commission to prepare an interim report,
which was released in 1987. The report recommended the inclusion of a range of
rights drawn from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Before the
commission had issued its final recommendations, however, the government
announced its plan for constitutional change.
7

The September 1988 referendum proposed to guarantee the right to trial by jury for
all people in Australia charged with offences carrying a maximum penalty of at least
two years imprisonment and to extend to the states the existing provisions relating
to freedom of religion and the requirement that the acquisition of property be on
just terms.
8
The referendum also proposed reforms associated with the electoral
system and local government. Voters were able to vote on each reform separately,
but all the proposals were defeated. In the view of one commentator, the defeat can
be attributed to the rushed nature of the referendum, the effective spoiling
campaign mounted by the opponents the lack of community understanding of the
proposals and the absence of bipartisan support.
9
Other commentators point to the
fact that the Constitutional Commission had no state support and was seen to lack
independence from the Labor Government.
10

10.3 Federal legislative proposals to protect rights
The Murphy Bill
In 1973, following the Whitlam Governments signing of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, federal Attorney-General Senator Lionel Murphy introduced the
Human Rights Bill 1973 into Parliament. When doing so, he noted that, although
rights were basic to a democratic society, they received remarkably little legal
protection in Australia.
11
The Bill provided for civil and political rights virtually
identical to those in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

7
See G Williams, A Charter of Rights for Australia (1997) 61; A Byrnes, H Charlesworth and G McKinnon,
Bills of Rights in Australia: history, politics and law (2009) 33. The commissions final report, issued in
June 1988, recommended more ambitious changes than its interim report. It proposed that a new
chapterChapter VIA, Rights and freedomsbe inserted in the Constitution, based heavily on the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unlike the Canadian Charter, though, government would not be
given the power to opt out of those rights and freedoms if it wished to pass legislation that was
inconsistent with them.
8
Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill 1988 (Cth).
9
G Williams, A Charter of Rights for Australia (1997) 62.
10
B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate over a bill of rights (1990) 20(4)
Publius 53, 612.
11
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 21 November 1973, 1972 (Senator Murphy, Attorney-
General).



232 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

including the right to non-discrimination; equal protection under the law; freedom of
thought, expression and movement; the right to vote; and the right to privacy.
The Murphy Bill had the following features:
Scope of application. The Bill applied at the federal level and throughout the
states and territories.
Enforcement of obligations. The Australian Human Rights Commissioner could,
on his or her own initiative, investigate human rights breaches by any person
(including federal, state and territory authorities and private individuals) and
then conciliate the matter or bring an action against the offender in the
Australian Industrial Court. Individuals could also initiate court proceedings. The
court could make a declaration that the offenders actions violated human rights
and order a range of remedies, among them injunctions and damages.
Effect on inconsistent legislation. Any federal or territory law that was
inconsistent with the Bill, whether passed before or after the Bill, would be
rendered inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency unless the law was
expressed to operate regardless of any inconsistency. Any state law that was
inconsistent with the Bill would be rendered inoperative by virtue of s. 109 of the
Constitution.
12

The Bill was criticised as unnecessary and likely to politicise the judiciary
13
and
intrude on state power.
14
Its legitimacy was also called into question because it was
based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had not yet
entered into force. The Bill lapsed when both houses of parliament were dissolved
in 1974, and it was not re-introduced.
15

The Human Rights Commission Act
In 1981 the Fraser Government took a different approach to the legislative
protection of human rights. It had ratified the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights in 1976 and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights in 1980 but argued that a human rights Act was inappropriate in the
Australian context because it would have serious implications for our federal
system of government and would be contrary to our long established constitutional

12
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution provides that, where a law of a state is inconsistent with a
federal law, the state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. Generally, a state law may be found
to be inconsistent where the state and federal laws cannot be obeyed simultaneously; the state law would
alter, impair or detract from the operation of the federal law or the exercise of a power under the federal
law; or a law of a state enters a field that the federal law was intended to cover exclusively or exhaustively.
13
A Byrnes, H Charlesworth and G McKinnon, Bills of Rights in Australia: history, politics and law (2009) 29.
14
One state spokesperson asserted that the real purpose behind the Bill was to assert a Commonwealth
domination over the Statessee B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate
over a bill of rights (1990) 20(4) Publius 53, 578.
15
A Byrnes, H Charlesworth and G McKinnon, Bills of Rights in Australia: history, politics and law (2009) 29.



A Human Rights Act?
| 233
traditions, according to which authority for our basic human rights is primarily
derived from the parliamentary and elective processes.
16

To redress some of the defects in the system, however, the Human Rights
Commission Act 1981 (Cth) was enacted. It established the Human Rights
Commission, which was able to inquire into acts or practices of the federal
government that were inconsistent with human rights.
17
The commission could try
to settle the matter and if this was not possible or appropriate, it could report to the
Minister on its findings. Its functions also included examining federal legislation to
determine its compatibility with human rights, reporting on laws that should be
made or actions that should be taken in matters relating to human rights, promoting
an understanding and acceptance of human rights, and engaging in research and
educational programs to promote human rights. The Act applied only at the federal
level since the states had apparently signalled their unwillingness to cooperate if
the commissions powers extended to state affairs.
18

Five years later the Act was replaced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 (Cth), which established the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission (now called the Australian Human Rights Commission).
While its predecessor the Human Rights Commission had operated essentially as a
part-time body, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission employed
three full-time commissioners. It also had an expanded complaint-handling function
and a greater emphasis on research and education.
19

The Evans Bill
In July 1983 Senator Gareth Evans, Attorney-General in the Hawke Government,
announced that the government would introduce the Australian Bill of Rights Bill
1984 as a precursor to constitutional reform. As with the Murphy Bill, the rights
were drawn from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Senator
Evans sought, however, to distinguish his Bill from the failed Murphy Bill: this one
would be used not so much as an aggressive weapon in its own right, but rather as
an aid to the interpretation of existing rules.
20


16
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 25 September 1979, 918 (Senator Durack).
17
Human rights took in the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
Declaration on the Rights of the Child 1959, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons
1971 and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons 1975.
18
P Bailey, Human Rights: Australia in an international context (1990) 1067.
19
See Australian Human Rights Commission, History of the Commission,
<http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/history/index.html> at 21 August 2009.
20
J Faine and M Pearce, An interview with Gareth Evans: blueprints for reform (1983) 8 Legislative Services
Bulletin 117, 118, cited in H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed)
Towards an Australian Bill of Rights (1994) 31.



234 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

The Evans Bill had the following features:
Scope of application. The Bill applied at the federal level and throughout the
states and territories.
Enforcement of obligations. In contrast with the Murphy Bill, neither individuals
nor the Human Rights Commission could bring court actions for human rights
breaches. The commission was empowered to investigate complaints about
federal, state or territory government authorities and to resolve them through
conciliation.
Effect on inconsistent legislation. Where federal, state or territory legislation was
ambiguous, the Bill required that legislation be interpreted in a manner that was
consistent with the Bill or that furthered the Bills objects. Any federal legislation
that had been passed before the Bill and was inconsistent with it would be
impliedly repealed. Any federal legislation that was passed after the Bill and was
inconsistent with it would be rendered inoperative unless it was expressed to
operate regardless of the inconsistency. If individuals felt that their rights had
been or would be infringed by federal, state or territory legislation they could
apply to a court for a declaration to that effect.
21
Inconsistent state legislation
would be rendered inoperative by virtue of s. 109 of the Constitution.
Senator Evans circulated the draft Bill among a few people but decided not to make
it public until after the 1984 federal election.
22
Queensland Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-
Petersen exposed the Bill during the election, however, calling it an audacious
attempt to restructure Australian political and social life to meet the demands of a
power-hungry Commonwealth Government bent on the destruction of the States
and the establishment of a socialist republic.
23
Western Australian Premier Brian
Burke attacked the Bill for its impact on the states.
24
The Bill was never introduced
into Parliament.
25

The Bowen Bill
In April 1985 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs
conducted an inquiry into the desirability of a human rights Act. In November of that
year the committee produced an exposure report that recommended the adoption
of such an Act
26
, but the report was overshadowed by the introduction into

21
Unless the individual was a party to proceedings arising under the impugned legislation.
22
B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate over a bill of rights (1990) 20(4)
Publius 53, 60.
23
The Canberra Times, 24 October 1984, cited in B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and
the debate over a bill of rights (1990) 20(4) Publius 53, 60.
24
A Byrnes, H Charlesworth and G McKinnon, Bills of Rights in Australia: history, politics and law (2009) 31.
25
H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of
Rights (1994) 32.
26
Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Parliament of Australia, A Bill of Rights for
Australia? An exposure report for the consideration of senators (1985).



A Human Rights Act?
| 235
parliament of a revised Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 by the new federal
Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen. The Bill focused on civil and political rights but was
less ambitious than the Murphy and Evans Bills.
The Bowen Bill had the following features:
Scope of application. The Bill applied at the federal level and to the territories. It
applied to the states only with respect to the powers and functions of the new
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Enforcement of obligations. As with the Evans Bill, neither individuals nor the
commission could bring court actions against government authorities. The
commission retained its power to investigate and report on breaches by federal
and territory authorities but could do so in relation to state authorities only with
the consent of the federal attorney-general.
Effect on inconsistent legislation. In contrast with the Evans Bill, only federal and
territory legislation was to be interpreted consistently with human rights. Any
existing federal legislation that was inconsistent with the Bill was deemed
repealed, and any inconsistent federal legislation passed after the Bill would be
rendered inoperative unless it was expressed to operate regardless of the
inconsistency. The Bill omitted the Evans Bill provision that enabled individuals
to seek a court declaration that a particular piece of legislation infringed their
human rights.
Despite considerable opposition, the Bill was passed by the House of
Representatives, but it stalled in the Senate, where it was attacked by both sides of
the debate: the Australian Democrats said the Bill did not go far enough
27
; others
said it was unnecessary
28
, liable to be abused by crooks
29
and forced judges to
decide political matters.
30
The Bill was withdrawn in November 1986.
Other attempts
There have been several other attempts to introduce human rights Bills into the
federal parliament
31
:
Senator Janine Haines, Australian DemocratsHuman Rights Bill 1982
(introduced as a private senators Bill). The Haines Bill was modelled on the
Murphy Bill but contained several revisions: it protected the family as the

27
See, for example, B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate over a bill of rights
(1990) 20(4) Publius 53, 60.
28
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 18 February 1986, 543 (Senator Collard).
29
ibid., 5545 (Senator Archer).
30
ibid., 552 (Senator Hill).
31
See Parliament of Australia, Parliamentary Library, Bills of Rights,
<http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/law/billofrights.htm> at 21 August 2009.



236 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

natural and fundamental unit of society, limited the permissible extent of
government interference in religious freedom, and protected the freedom to
manifest ones sexual preference.
32
The Bill did not progress beyond its second
reading.
Senator Meg Lees, Australian DemocratsParliamentary Charter of Rights and
Freedoms Bill 2001. The Lees Bill was modelled on the Bowen Bill but also
applied to state laws and actions, as well as the common law and delegated
legislation. The Bill did not progress beyond its second reading but was
re-introduced by Senator Natasha Stott Despoja in 2005 and 2008.
Dr Andrew Theophanous MP, IndependentAustralian Bill of Rights Bill 2001.
The Theophanous Bill required federal, state and territory legislation to be
interpreted consistently with human rights and gave the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission the power to investigate the conduct of federal,
state and territory authorities. The Bill did not proceed to a second reading.
10.4 Why did previous attempts fail?
Although there are many reasons why these previous attempts failed, what is
common to all the attempts is the impact they had on state power. The 1944 and
1988 constitutional amendments sought to constrain state power by reference to
particular rights. The legislative attempts either imposed obligations on state
authorities or affected the operation of state legislation, albeit to varying degrees.
Although commentators acknowledge that many factors were at play during the
debates over these Bills, they point to federalstate dynamics as an important
element of the controversy.
33

One commentator has attributed the progressive weakening of the Bills in large part
to federal pressures: Some of the States predicted a dismantling of the federation
because of the erosion of their rights.
34
She noted that one concern in relation to
Evanss proposal was the Human Rights Commissions ability to investigate state
action and that the sole successful attempt at legislative protectionthe Human
Rights Commission Act 1981 (Cth)was passed only because it did not affect state
legislation.
35


32
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, Senate, 9 November 1982, 2058 (Senator Haines).
33
See, for example, B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate over a bill of rights
(1990) 20(4) Publius 53, 57.
34
H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of
Rights (1994) 33. See also B Galligan, R Knopff and J Uhr, Australian federalism and the debate over a
bill of rights (1990) 20(4) Publius 53.
35
H Charlesworth, The Australian reluctance about rights in P Alston (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of
Rights (1994) 33.



A Human Rights Act?
| 237
The second main reason for the failure of the various attempts is that they were
seen to transfer power from a democratically elected parliament to an unelected
judiciary. Under the Murphy Bill both individuals and the Human Rights Commission
were able to bring court actions, and there was a wide range of potential remedies
available. Under all the Bills courts could declare legislation inconsistent with the
Bill, with the consequence that it would be rendered inoperative.
10.5 Recent state and territory inquiries
In recent years six Australian jurisdictions have held inquiries into how human rights
can be better protected.
In Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory the
inquiries were conducted by independent committeesthat is, the committees did
not consist of members of parliament. All recommended the adoption of a human
rights Act for their state or territory. Victoria and the ACT have now acted on that
recommendation by passing the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act
2006 (Vic) and the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). Tasmania and Western Australia
have deferred action until this National Human Rights Consultation is finalised.
In Queensland and New South Wales inquiries were conducted by parliamentary
committees; both committees rejected the notion of a human rights Act and instead
recommended the adoption of other measures to protect and promote human
rights.
Following is a summary of the recommendations of the various inquiries and the
extent to which those recommendations have been implemented.
Queensland
In 1998 the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee considered
whether Queensland should adopt a human rights Act. The committee released an
issues paper and sought submissions from the public. It received 67 submissions.
The committee rejected all human rights Act models, finding that a human rights Act
would involve an inappropriate transfer of power from parliament to an unelected
judiciary, which could find itself making decisions of a policy nature. The committee
was concerned that a human rights Act would have an unpredictable impact on the
amount and cost of litigation and that increased legal costs would make such an Act
of use only to the wealthy. It noted that a human rights Act that regulated the acts of
public authorities would be limited in its coverage in view of the increasingly
powerful private sector. Another factor found to weigh against a human rights Act



238 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

was that there were no readily identifiable solutions to questions such as which
rights should be protected.
36

The committees recommendations focused instead on education, and it prepared a
handbookQueenslanders Basic Rightsfor this purpose. It recommended that the
handbook form an integral part of rights and civics education, that it be regularly
updated by the committee, and that the Minister for Education report to parliament
on current and planned strategies for ensuring that school children receive effective
civics education. The committee also recommended improved public sector
education.
In response, the government has taken steps to include civics education in school
curricula and has sent resource kits to secondary schools, TAFEs, universities, state
members of parliament, local governments and community groups.
37

Queenslanders Basic Rights does not appear to have been updated since 1998.
New South Wales
In 1999 the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice was asked
to report on whether New South Wales should adopt a human rights Act and, if so,
what rights and enforcement mechanisms should be included in the Act. The
committee held 12 public hearings and received 82 submissions and 59 letters.
The committee acknowledged the failures of the current system but decided it was
not in the public interest to enact a human rights Act because such an Act would
undermine parliamentary supremacy and the independence of the judiciary.
38
It
instead recommended the establishment of a new parliamentary committee to
review Bills for their compliance with human rights. It also recommended amending
the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) to allow judges to consider international treaties
to which Australia is a party when interpreting ambiguous legislation.
The Legislation Review Committee was established in 2003. It is required to report
to parliament on whether a proposed law trespasses unduly on personal rights and
liberties.
39
The Interpretation Act was not amended in accordance with the
committees recommendations.

36
See Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee, Parliament of Queensland, The
Preservation and Enhancement of Individuals Rights and Freedoms in Queensland: should Queensland
adopt a bill of rights? Report No. 12 (1998) 523.
37
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Regional Communities Newsletter, Issue 7, September 2002, 3.
38
See Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice, Parliament of NSW, A NSW Bill of Rights,
Report No. 17 (2001) 110.
39
Legislation Review Act 1987 (NSW), s. 8A(1)(b)(i).



A Human Rights Act?
| 239
The Australian Capital Territory
In 2002 the ACT Government appointed a Bill of Rights Consultative Committee to
inquire into the possibility of a human rights Act for the ACT. The committee
received 145 submissions, hosted six public consultations and held a further
49 meetings with various community groups and individuals. A deliberative poll was
conducted at which 200 representative ACT residents were given the opportunity to
discuss human rights before being surveyed.
The committee recommended the adoption of a human rights Act and for that to be
accompanied by broad and continuing education programs.
40
The Act was to be
based on the dialogue model (see Chapter 11) and was to include civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights.
The ACT Government accepted most of the committees recommendations
although it rejected, for example, the inclusion of economic, social and cultural
rightsand the Human Rights Act 2004 was passed.
Victoria
In 2005 the Victorian Government appointed a Human Rights Consultation
Committee to consult the community about whether Victorian law should be
changed in order to better protect human rights. Before the committees
appointment the government released a statement of intent, setting out its
preferred model for a human rights Act.
41
In all, 2524 submissions were received;
55 community consultations, information sessions and public forums were held;
and there were 75 consultations with government and parties with an interest in the
subject, among them the judiciary, the police, businesspeople, human rights bodies,
victims of crime and legal academics.
The committee recommended the enactment of a human rights Act based on the
dialogue model, focusing on civil and political rights but with the possibility of
inserting economic, social and cultural rights at a later stage.
42

The Victorian Government accepted most of the committees recommendations and
the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) was passed.

40
ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee, Towards an ACT Human Rights Act: report of the ACT Bill of
Rights Consultative Committee (2003).
41
See Victorian Human Rights Consultation Committee, Rights, Responsibilities and Respect: the report of
the Human Rights Consultation Committee (2005), Appendix B.
42
Victorian Human Rights Consultation Committee, Rights, Responsibilities and Respect: the report of the
Human Rights Consultation Committee (2005).



240 |
Human Rights Consultation Committee Report

Tasmania
In 2006 the Tasmanian Government asked the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute to
consider how human rights could best be promoted and protected in the state. The
institute established a Human Rights Community Consultation Committee, which
received 407 submissions and held 66 community consultation meetings, briefing
sessions and presentations with a range of community groups.
The committee recommended the enactment of a human rights Act based on the
dialogue model and including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.
43

The Tasmanian Government decided to delay action on the matter until this
National Human Rights Consultation is finalised.
44

Western Australia
In 2007 the Western Australian Government appointed a Consultation Committee
for a Proposed WA Human Rights Act and asked it to consider the ways in which
greater awareness of, respect for and observance of human rights could be
achieved. The government prepared a draft Human Rights Bill 2007 to facilitate
consultation, the Bill being based on the dialogue model and designed to protect
civil and political rights. The committee received 377 submissions, held 39 public
forums and 50 meetings with interested parties, conducted a random survey of 400
people, and consulted 405 people from marginalised groups.
The committee recommended the adoption of the Human Rights Bill with some
modifications, among them the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights.
45

When the report was published the Western Australian Government announced it
would await the outcome of this National Consultation before giving further
consideration to a human rights Act.
46
Since then, however, the Attorney-General
has revealed he is opposed to a human rights Act.
47

Conclusion
Victoria and the ACT are not alone in having passed human rights Acts: in fact, they
both drew heavily from other human rights legislation around the world. Chapter 11
compares the Victorian and ACT human rights Acts with Acts that have been
adopted in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.

43
Tasmania Law Reform Institute, A Charter of Rights for Tasmania, Report No. 10 (2007).
44
Plans for a Tasmanian bill on hold, The Mercury (Hobart) 11 December 2008.
45
Consultation Committee for a proposed WA Human Rights Act, A WA Human Rights Act: report of the
Consultation Committee for a Proposed WA Human Rights Act (2007).
46
Attorney-General, Human rights report completed (Press release, 20 December 2007).
47
See, for example, C Porter, Pluralism, parliamentary democracy and bills of rights in J Leeser and R
Haddrick (eds) Dont Leave Us with the Bill: the case against an Australian bill of rights (2009) 12744.